Registrar Of Co-operative Society Is A Public Authority Expected To Provide Information Sought Under RTI Act: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court held that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is a public authority obligated to provide information as enumerated in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, subject to the limitations specified under Section 8 of the Act.

Additionally, it observed that the Registrar is permitted by law to gather information from a society over which he has supervisory or administrative control under the Cooperative Societies Act.

In that context, the Bench of Justice S Manu observed that, "the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is a public authority who is expected to provide the information enumerated in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act subject to the limitations provided under Section 8 of the Act. Registrar can also, to the extent the law permits, gather information from a society on which he has supervisory or administrative control under the Cooperative Societies Act."

In this case, the appellant sought information about a Co-operative Society from the office of the Joint Registrar (General) of Cooperative Societies under the RTI Act. When the Public Information Officer, First Appellate Authority, and Second Appellate Authority did not provide the information, the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court. After the High Court dismissed the petition, the appellant filed a writ appeal.

The appellant argued that the information was available with the Joint Registrar's office and should have been provided under the RTI Act. He claimed that information related to any private body accessible by a public authority is covered under Section 2(f) of the Act. He also argued that if the information was not directly available from the Joint Registrar's office, it should have been obtained from the Co-operative Society and provided to him.

The Counsel for the Co-operative Society argued that the information requested by the appellant was exempt from disclosure under Section 8 of the RTI Act.

The Court held that the 1st respondent (the Joint Registrar) did not conduct a thorough analysis of the issues involved in the appeal. Specifically, the 1st respondent failed to examine whether the information sought by the appellant fell within the scope of information accessible by the Joint Registrar under the Co-operative Societies Act and the associated rules. Additionally, the 1st respondent did not assess whether the information fell under the exempted categories specified in Section 8 of the RTI Act.

The Court noted that the 1st respondent should have considered that "information" under the RTI Act includes information relating to any private body that can be accessed by a public authority under any other law. Furthermore, the 1st respondent did not adhere to the principles established by the Supreme Court in the Thalappalam Service Co-operative Society case.

Consequently, the Court found that the 1st respondent’s order lacked proper application of mind and could not be sustained.

Cause Title: PR Ramachandran vs The State Chief Information Commissioner

Click here to read/download the Judgment